|
CBG SATELLITES
The ADD Blog by Alan David Doane
|
 PLEASE SUPPORT COMIC BOOK GALAXY BY VISITING OUR SPONSORS
This is going to be an odd one, I can feel it. Probably a short one, too. It so happens that, without any real explanation for it, I somehow picked up something of a social life in the past week, so I didn’t do much comics reading. Did you realize that some women, and this is rare, might still be attracted to you after you mention you’re writing a graphic novel? Strange but true. I mean, you really have no excuse now, do you? I also finished reading a good novel, and am partially through the Chris Ware monograph and a long way from done with The Complete Calvin and Hobbes. I’m sure I’ll have something to say about both of those, so let’s set that aside for now. I was thinking of doing a kind of “rerun” column—pulling some past reviews of graphic novels that remained pretty timeless. But it turns out I guess I don’t have those files, and the site that kept the really old CBG archives is really spotty. The stuff I did find was mainly very dated reviews of floppies or just stuff I don’t particularly care for now. Interesting to find that less than two years ago I enthusiastically reviewed a manga called The Ruler of the Land that I don’t remember at all. And a couple years before that, I filed, “The Negation Conversation—An Interview With Tony Bedard,” no doubt done during a time when the site was being supplied regularly with CrossGen titles and we felt some obligation to throw the spotlight on them with some regularity. I have no recollection of the interview and would have sworn with a gun to my head I’d never had any contact with Bedard before I saw this. And of course I saw columns I’d edited from former CBG writers with whom I dealt with on a daily basis for months whom I’d forgotten entirely. Memory is an amazing thing. Kind of amusing to see such an enthusiastic review by ADD of the Kevin Smith/Michael Avon Oeming Bluntman and Chronic graphic novel, too! Actually, that kind of leads me to a realization, admittedly not a deep one. Whatever ADD or I or any CBG contributor has written here, it’s been the honest opinion of the time. Or at least I’ll vouch for myself and him and most of the others. And really, you shouldn’t be upset you raved about something you now might think is crap, or at least you see some big flaws in it. That’s growth. That’s refining your tastes, adding to your knowledge and experience. Some art is made to last a lunchtime, not a lifetime, and that’s okay. I rarely eat at McDonald’s anymore, because I don’t like the taste of much of their food and none of it is healthy, but as one is close to my work, I will sometimes eat there out of convenience. So the other day, I ordered a Cobb Salad and it took them so long to make it the manager gave me some fries for free. They were at the peak temperature, crisp and tasty—the best I can remember from them. But I know if I had them just fifteen minutes later, they’d be crud already. But that doesn’t mean that for that short time they weren’t great. It’s just one of the occupational hazards of being a critic that one will, without meaning to, put out an opinion that changes some time after the review goes up. You really can’t worry about it, and if you go back and find you feel differently now about something, well then maybe you have become a little smarter, better-informed, or something in your life experience has given you a new perspective. With that said, I wanted to share my end of some conversations from the last couple days with other comics pundits. I’ll just run them in chronological order, with no editing other than to remove names of those to whom I was responding. What I want to do here is not necessarily to piss off those who have great affection and admiration for Moore and his works, because I count myself fully in their company, but I think it’s really, really important, as an adult, to see beyond affection, and nostalgia, and vague, happy wishes, to the facts and laws we all are living with in this particular reality. No one is infallible, even geniuses.
2) I don’t think Moore’s talent should be a consideration here—if Marv Wolfman wants his name off The Judas Contract because he doesn’t like the Teen Titans cartoon, that’s really no different. You’re giving Moore moral weight merely because he’s more famous and more respected. What about the morality of honoring a contract? If Moore feels that DC or one of their affiliated companies or agents committed acts that render Moore’s and Lloyd’s original contract with DC, then Moore and probably Lloyd need to seek legal representation.
The last response responds to #2, so it contains refutations to some assertions there. It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out what I’m arguing against—I may be wrong, but I’m usually pretty thorough. I reiterate a good deal of what I already said with somewhat different words, as you’ll see: 3) You’re saying that as long as Moore isn’t interested in money, DC shouldn’t be, either, and while I would be happy if the rights to V reverted to Moore, it’s just not fair to expect the other party to concede to your demands just because your position seems to be one based more on creative principles than commerce. It’s a contract between two parties struck in order to make commerce. One thing that’s interesting to me is that this is really a new stance for Moore, asserting that movies based off his books somehow damage his reputation and retroactively hurt the books themselves. From what I remember, he has ignored the movies and treated them, quite rightly in my opinion, as almost wholly separate entities, and his desire to never be a part of them fits with that. To me, and I’m sure to many, LOEG isn’t harmed by the movie, nor From Hell, and neither will V. I don’t think it’s accurate to say the issue is DC using his reputation to sell the movie, since a) DC is not a movie studio—should I stop watching The Simpsons if I don’t like Sean Hannity? It’s all Fox, right? b) “sub-standard hack” is not really a fair description of the Wachowskis, whom one would really have to assume care about the book even if they totally screw it up—it’s not exactly a story that screams blockbuster, and besides, it’s reasonable to assume no one would make the version Moore would like, since he never wanted a film anyway; c) Moore is not really a sales powerhouse, on average. To me, and your “sub-standard hack” comments support this, this is a pretty simple issue that is only clouded by emotions—admiration for Moore and probably past anger at DC and other publishers. Because Moore is more respected—and apparently for you, because he’s also a better seller than Wolfman—his wishes carry more weight. That’s just the cult of personality, not any opinion based on logic or legality or ethics or morals. When Terrel Owens held out for more money one year into a lucrative contract, it rightly pissed people off, because he should have shut up and honored his contract. He may be an idiot wide receiver and not a genius writer like Moore, but they were both adults when they signed their contracts, and they’re both just entertainers when you boil it down. No one’s morality or sense of fairness is the same, and that’s why we have laws. If he wants to pursue this legally, more power to him. Right now it’s just a rant, and in my opinion a poorly conceived one. Okay, so now we’ve learned that I really like to hear myself talk, and so, please send your emails about how Moore has more talent in the blancmange in his beard than me, because you’re probably right. But hey, I call it like I see it. Next week, most likely a review of The Freebooters by another ubertalented, bearded and highly principled creator, Barry Windsor-Smith, and probably at least one more book as well. Thanks for reading, as always.
Send review copies to:
|
1) I have nothing but respect for Moore as a creator and want him to be as happy and "boiling rage" free as possible. That said, pretty much by his own admission his reasons for wanting his name off his work "boil" down to emotional ones, not ones based in law, logic or even ethics. Should Joel Silver or the movie studio have used a false quote from Moore to try to sell V for Vendetta to a few more thousand people who even know who Moore is? No, that was wrong. Is that DC Comics' fault? Not that I can see. If Donald Trump says something risible on The Apprentice, I don't stop watching Lost, you know? Your mileage and sense of moral outrage may vary. Simply, Moore entered into an agreement with DC regarding V for Vendetta that DC has lived up to. That Moore hoped V would fall out of print has no bearing on anything, and if you take it a little further, it suggests Moore entering into a contract hoping that the work he provided would fail, which doesn't cast him into a great light, really. I understand his feelings of this fictive child being abducted and whored out and all of that, really. But it's kind of like giving up a child for adoption and then having a change of heart years later and expecting the parents to give the child back. Whether he likes it or not--and he is one of the only comics writers who HAS the luxury of liking it or not--Moore's name sells books, consistently if not spectacularly. DC and any publisher are in the business of selling books. Taking Moore's name off something he'd agreed to be shown as the author of in the past means fewer books will be sold, and I don't see any reason for DC to capitulate. As Moore said, he was "very aware" of what he was getting into--this is not a Siegel/Shuster or Jack Kirby thing at all. Moore isn't getting screwed; he is demanding a publisher cease publishing a book that has sold reliably for many years, or else amend it so that it will sell less. I'm not against a writer removing their name from a current comic prior to publication or prior to a story arc being completed if they feel their work has been altered or compromised so much it doesn't represent them, but I don't think it's right to retroactively remove a name based on a writer having a new perspective on authorship than he did when the contract was signed. 
In lieu of this, I don’t see it as much of a stand for creators rights so much as one creator’s attempt to sway the court of public opinion, an uncharacteristically emotional and poorly-plotted gesture by Moore. It’s not that hard, because people naturally support one man against a faceless corporation, and 99% of the time they’re right to do so. I don’t think so, in this case. The gesture may be symbolic, but carries financial implications. Whether “everyone” knows or will know ten years from now that Moore wrote V, the absence of his name on the book would very likely impact sales. Again, this is not a case of a young or naïve creator getting screwed; this was a creator who knew the key rights clause in the contract and hoped/expected that it would come into play, and Moore had the unique misfortune of doing such a good job of it and subsequent works that the book has remained in print. If anything, Moore’s preemptive strike here hurts his chances down the line at mounting a real suit for ownership of V.